The action "mi pu" is accompanied by "sama mi". I could say "mi pu sama sina", "I read the Book like you". But your point is that "sama sina" in "sama sina la" is noun phrase. You could say that, and also "tan sina la" would be "at your cause" instead of "because of you". Stranger things have happened. Our two interpretations would yield - grammars apart - the same sentences. But your interpretation would also allow for a new class of sentences, which I haven't read in the Book, and - perhaps more importantly - neither in your sentences.

OK, I didn't see this one coming. But am I "not right"? Let's see, shall we?

janTepanNetaPelin wrote:The action "mi pu" is accompanied by "sama mi". I could say "mi pu sama sina", "I read the Book like you". But your point is that "sama sina" in "sama sina la" is noun phrase.

In "mi pu, sama sina." is "sama sina" the prepositional object. "sama" is a preposition here. But if you move the prepositional object before "la" you have to skip the preposition. But it works only with "lon" I think.

janTepanNetaPelin wrote:You could say that, and also "tan sina la" would be "at your cause" instead of "because of you". Stranger things have happened. Our two interpretations would yield - grammars apart - the same sentences. But your interpretation would also allow for a new class of sentences, which I haven't read in the Book, and - perhaps more importantly - neither in your sentences.

Yes, Toki Pona allow often different interpretations. The most sentences have several grammar possibilities. That is sometimes interesting and funny

What do you mean with "new class of sentences"?

janTepanNetaPelin wrote:OK, I didn't see this one coming. But am I "not right"? Let's see, shall we?

jan_Lope wrote:I'm not using my own grammar. I try to use logic to fill the gabs. pona!

toki!

Either it works only with "lon" and "tan seme la" stands for "lon tan seme?", which is always replaced by "tan seme?" OR you can put "prepositional objects" in front of a sentence using "la" and "lon" is always ommited in the process. I leave this decision to the reader.

I think it would be a nice piece of information for the reader if you could include your findings in your grammar, i.e. that your grammar yields a "lon" in *"mi pu lon tawa sina" and requires a "pi" in *"tawa pi sina mute la mi pu". This would help the reader to make a decision.

janTepanNetaPelin wrote:I think it would be a nice piece of information for the reader if you could include your findings in your grammar, i.e. that your grammar yields a "lon" in *"mi pu lon tawa sina" and requires a "pi" in *"tawa pi sina mute la mi pu". This would help the reader to make a decision.

toki!

What do you mean with "your grammar"?

Why do you think a "la" phrase requires a "pi"?

pona!

pona!jan Lopehttps://jan-lope.github.io(Lessons and the Toki Pona Parser - A tool for spelling, grammar check and ambiguity check of Toki Pona)

On my foe list are the sockpuppets janKipo and janSilipu because of permanent, rude spamming.

Since Lope ( and, I think, Tepan) don't see my comments, this pretty pointless, but the discussion seems a bit muddled. As far as I can make out, Lope is maintaining that only sentences can go before 'la', except for prepositional phrases beginning with 'lon', in which case the 'lon' is always dropped. If true, then phrases like 'tan ni la' "therefore" would have to be understood as 'lon tan ni' "at this cause" or "at the cause of this", neither of which is obviously what the expression means. I'm not sure why Lope takes this position in the face of both the corpus and pu, but clearly in those sources, 1) other prepositions than 'lon' can be fronted ( both 'tan' and 'tawa' have been offered and 'sama' as well) 2) other prepositions can be topped occasionally in fronting (arguably, 'mi la' is from 'tawa mi la' "according to me"), 3) all manner of other expressions ( we really need to work on that list) can occur before 'la' without plausible sentential or prepositional bases: 'nanpa wan', 'ike', 'ken', 'kin', and so on.

According to your grammar (i.e. your understanding of Toki Pona's grammar) a sentence can't start with a preposition. Therefore a sentence like "tan seme la sina pu" ("why do you read the Book?") doesn't start with a preposition "tan" but with a noun "tan", and "sina" is its modifier ("at which reason do you read the Book?"). If we take "jan seme" instead of "seme" ("because of whom do you read the Book?") your grammar yields "tan pi jan seme la sina pu?" ("at whose reason do you read the Book?").

This should answer the question why I think that (according to your grammar) (complex) "la"-sentences require a "pi".

My lessons and Parser are in accordance to the official Toki Pona book.

janTepanNetaPelin wrote:According to your grammar (i.e. your understanding of Toki Pona's grammar) a sentence can't start with a preposition. Therefore a sentence like "tan seme la sina pu" ("why do you read the Book?") doesn't start with a preposition "tan" but with a noun "tan", and "sina" is its modifier ("at which reason do you read the Book?"). If we take "jan seme" instead of "seme" ("because of whom do you read the Book?") your grammar yields "tan pi jan seme la sina pu?" ("at whose reason do you read the Book?").

This should answer the question why I think that (according to your grammar) (complex) "la"-sentences require a "pi".mi tawa.

I can't follow you. "sina" is no modifier here. You can use "pi" accordingly to what you like to say. It is independent from "la".

My lessons and Parser are in accordance to the official Toki Pona book.

janTepanNetaPelin wrote:According to your grammar (i.e. your understanding of Toki Pona's grammar) a sentence can't start with a preposition. Therefore a sentence like "tan seme la sina pu" ("why do you read the Book?") doesn't start with a preposition "tan" but with a noun "tan", and "sina" is its modifier ("at which reason do you read the Book?"). If we take "jan seme" instead of "seme" ("because of whom do you read the Book?") your grammar yields "tan pi jan seme la sina pu?" ("at whose reason do you read the Book?").

This should answer the question why I think that (according to your grammar) (complex) "la"-sentences require a "pi".mi tawa.

I can't follow you. "sina" is no modifier here. You can use "pi" accordingly to what you like to say. It is independent from "la".